Letter to the Editor: Water conservancy disconnect?

Dear Editor:
The Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District’s goal: Protect water in the White River Basin for agriculture, communities, recreation, wildlife, industry, etc., within the district. The board is sincere and I believe this is their intent, but when I read:
“The Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District continues to acquire, preserve and defend a large source of water in Northwest Colorado for development of an oil shale industry. The Yellow Jacket Board members and attorney attend state and regional meetings regarding the intrinsic need for water in the development of the oil shale product. The challenge is to go as far as possible to provide water to enable one thousand billion barrels of oil from the Green River formation to be developed as a major fuel source for America.” (Application for Finding of Due Diligence, District Court Water Division NO. 6, Sept. 30, 2009)
When I see YJWCD spending a quarter million taxpayers’ dollars planning: 100,000 acre feet dedicated to oil shale, 10,000 acre feet for all other uses, 110,000 total acre feet of storage, 90 percent for oil shale. (Public review of a draft of Phase 1 of the YJWCD Study, as of 10/20/2010 incomplete.) Dave Merritt, CRWCD Board member and spokesperson for Applegate Consulting, reported to the September 2011 YJWCD board meeting, 200,000 acre-feet of water storage would actually be required by oil shale.
Dillon Reservoir’s water volume is 250,000 acre feet.
There is a disconnect somewhere!
Those opposed have offered to complete agreements that were negotiated before the judge canceled YJWCD’s water rights. The agreement would allow Yellow Jacket to obtain new water rights for storage projects and include reasonable protections for the White River Valley and landowners. The agreement was acceptable before the judge’s ruling – why not now? Why doesn’t the district get on with their job of figuring out how to protect all of the water for citizens of the district?
Since making the offer, plaintiffs have had no response. Instead the district has chosen to spend more taxpayer dollars: asking the Colorado River District for additional tax dollars for legal fees and voted to appeal the ruling of a respected Water Court judge. A ruling the judge has considered on two previous occasions.
Why not settle and move forward? Instead the Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District voted to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. The appeal will be expensive and paid for by taxpayers.
Look who is developing oil shale – Exxon, Shell, etc. With their billions of dollars in profits, and with 90 percent of the planned storage dedicated to oil shale, why are we spending taxpayer dollars?
Joe Livingston
Meeker

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

You can adjust all of your cookie settings by navigating the tabs on the left hand side.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

disable

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

disable

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

Additional Cookies

This website uses the following additional cookies:

Google Adsense

Coupons.com

Facebook

disable

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!